Redstate

6.  Guiliani would get a controversial vice president who may be able to 'balance' the ticket, but I would say it would be more likely that Brownback would confuse the ticket with two contrasting messages on social issues.
   
7.  Guiliani would be blasted for playing pure politics with the selection of his Vice President solely to garner the support of the 'religious right.'
   
8.  It would leave Republicans with a very controversial Presidential candidate in either 2012 and 2016.  Many consider that Brownback is unelectable, I'm undecided there, but I do know that if he continues to make comments that relate abortion to the holocaust, then he can only hurt a Presidential ticket.
   
9.  I'm not sure if Brownback fits the Vice Presidential mold.  He's been taking on too many controversial issues to merely play second fiddle.  Again, I feel that Brownback would confuse the ticket by sending contrasting messages, especially when Rudy tries to explain his 'federalism' approach.
   
10.  Brownback hasn't exactly proven himself fiscally, and I doubt it will be his fiscal issues that will be played if he runs for President and/or if he's nominated Vice President.

My thoughts on the Veep position:

The veep is the second fiddle, the backup, the guy that you want to mirror the President in nearly all ways, so to not stay off message.  If Rudy is the Republican nominee, I expect him to select someone that reinforces his strong points, possibly someone that has experience in Washington (Cheney 2000) but someone who's job would be to appeal to one block of voters.  Brownback just seems too volatile and too off the Rudy message.

And those are good points too.  I'm assuming that Rudy will need a "Quayle" of sorts to show that he's serious about working with the social right, but we also have to keep in mind that Bush 41 was often chided for the Quayle strategy and I doubt that Quayle was instrumental to his 8 pt victory in 1988.  And Brownback would have to WANT to do this, which is also a question.

nominate a less controversial politician that happens to be a notable social conservative, not the current de-facto leader of the religious right in the Senate.

Someone along the lines of Pawlenty.  Low key, sufficiently conservative.

Really it's tough to gauge what Rudy would do because he pretty much would have the political capital to nominate anyone with a socially conservative record... a represenative, senator, governor, or ex-politicians (oh god, now I'm  gonna start the Rudy/Fred Thompson talk.)

How's Tim doing in MN?  Heard he's going to have a fight on his hands for reelection next year.

A Giuliani/Pawlenty strategy would be interesting.  Sweep the Rust Belt, make a play for the mid-atlantic states, assume that the ticket in the aggregate is conservative enough to hold the red states, especially with fear of Hillary keeping the reds in line.

Howard Stern off the airwaves, I would have a very hard time voting for Rudy, with him on the ticket. And as Rudy is a freind of Howard's, I highly doubt this ticket would happen.

The strategy sounds excellent to me, but I concur with StevenK that Brownback being effectively anointed as a successor could weigh the GOP down in the longer term. That said, if a more suitable social conservative could be found - Pawlenty, yup - that may prove to be a better idea.

That said, I get the feeling that the difficulty of overcoming Giuliani's socially liberal views is overstated somewhat; he has three tactics he should combine against it. First, a federalist stance as mentioned by Dave; second, an electable social conservative as VP; third, a commitment to the appointment of black-letter-law types to the SC.

Also I suspect that Giuliani wouldn't hurt the party's chances with the South Park Republican contingent, although that's just a guess.

Maybe we could get the FCC to shrink to a scheduling organization then. ... ah fantasies.

You have to be an inside the Beltway type. Only somebody who thinks politics matters could come up with something so inane. I am sick and tired of winning elections and affecting zero change in Washington, DC. Forget the fact that a Giuliani/Brownback pairing makes no sense, what the heck would they stand for?

What we need is leadersip. I like Rudy as a leader but he just doesn't represent closely enough what I believe to get my support. Brownback has zero appeal nationally. What I would like to see is someone from outside of DC that can come in and kick some behind and start to shrink this monolith called the Federal government. Why do people keep looking at the Senate as a source for political leadership when the track record for these stiffs is so clearly a negative? Who was the last Senator who won for President? If Brownback wants to be President, he should go back to Kansas, knock off that liberal Governor, be a chief executive for a few years and come back in 2012 or 2016.

If Guliani is the nominee, it would make it easy for me to go third party.  And I would, along with millions of others, with no regrets.  If the Republicans nominate Guliani or any other liberal, it will be committing political suicide.  

And the party leaders are just stupid enough to do it.

Giuliani or McCain would cause me to just stay home or go for a third party candidate.

Re: I am sick and tired of winning elections and affecting zero change in Washington, DC.

As critical as I have been on the current GOP out-porking the Democrats, to suggest that the Bush administration is identical to the Clinton administration is bizarre, to say the least.

For Spider-Man.

There is no doubt a nominee like Rudy or Condoleeza Rice would be terrible for the Republican party.  The base would leave.  My question is, where would they go?  I would almost love to see Nader run as a green or whatever he is, at the same time as someone like Dean or Hillary.  Then let the GOP run Rudy, and some conservative run as a third party candidate.  At least then we would have real options.

So, if you are a conservative Republican, which doesn't seem to be the norm these days, where are you going to go if the party kills itself?  Are there any potential candidates or third parties you have your eye on?  Its certainly not too late to start planning something.

I love Alan Keyes, I enjoyed George Allen as my governor when I lived in Virginia.  While I disagree with Pat Buchanan on some issues, I agree with him on the most important and could support him,  Who else do we have?

Jeb Bush.

If his last name wasnt Bush, he would sit atop these polls with Rudy and McCain.

Of course there would be no guarantee he would have ever been Gov, but assume that he was Gov or that Gore (my heart!) had won, he surely, at minimum, would be the VP choice in '08.  Probably the nominee.

The base would leave.

Gimme a break. In 2000, George W. Bush was the same thing. The so-called "base" watched in horror as this well-financed RINO (admit it -- we all feared he was a RINO from the beginning) mowed down the competition as it slowly moved West across the country. I was living in CA at the time; it was a done deal before we even had the primary.

What was I gonna do in the general, vote for Gore? To tell the truth, I've been pleasantly surprised by GWB.

The thing is, I'm aware that I'm a wingnut. I accept that anyone I would really like could no more win the general than jump to the Moon. GWB is 537 votes to the right of what the country will accept. Keep that in mind.

I don't think that Giuliani would win, and not only because so many conservatives wouldn't vote for him.  Once they start digging into his past -- like, his affairs with Christine Lategano and Judith Nathan while married to Donna Hanover, for just one example -- I don't think he would stand up to the scrutiny.  IMO, that's the real reason he dropped out of the Senatorial race against Hillary.

at the time of the Senate campaign.  Rudy's prostate cancer was real and it was obvious he was a hurting unit.

With that said, who knows?  You may be right.  Not like Hillary has no baggage tho.  In '00 it would have been a real race but now even the fantasy polls show Hillary beating Rudy easily for Senate in '06.  The reason for this is because NY has lost half million people (inc me) to other parts of the country due to its liberal policies.  Wanna bet how most of those voters vote?  And they gained about half million more citizens, a lot immigrants.  Wanna bet how THEY vote?

Anyone consider a Giuliani-Mehlman campaign a possibility?  That is certainly something that I would like to see.

"with him on fiscal and foreign policy matters"

Do you have any evidence on this one.  He voted for the Medicare Pork Bill, the Transportation Pork Bill, the Energy Pork Bill, and almost every other spending initiative to cross his desk.  If you're looking for fiscal conservatives, the Senate is not generally a good place to look (with the exceptions of Kyl, Coburn, and McCain).

Also, what evidence is there that Rudy is a fiscal conservative.  The city he ran was still the biggest city government in the country after he finished.  He has a lot of big pluses, but I'm not sure why I should expect him to veto pork bills any more than President Bush.  I see no history of standing up to his own party or the Ds on over-spending.

The most popular Republican in the state. Any governor's race here is competitive, but I fully expect him to win.

Also seems to have no chance in hell of working out, the Conservative Base would revolt/stay home and one or the other candidate would rub 'Moderates' the wrong way.

When push comes to shove, I'm a party hack on Election day!

I personally have less of a chance to vote for the 'momentous' Guilaini/Brownback... than I do of seeing the movie 'Brokeback Mountain'.

What do these have in common? (besides alliteration)

Putting either of these together shows colossal errors in what is acceptable and mainstream in America. Here are the issues.

1. Don't like the liberal conotations
   
   
2. Aren't comfortable with who the people are
   
   
3. Don't think it's a workable relationship
   
   
4. Don't like people hiding who they are

So am I talking about this 08' ticket or the movie?

at villifying the democrats.  While many here say they would stay at home rather than vote for Giuliani or McCain, I would bet the vast majority of the "base" would still come out simply because they fear the alternative (democrat) so much.  Sometimes success can be your biggest enemy.

Hmm.  Perhaps I was thinking of Coburn on the fiscal issues.  I do recall several diaries here on RedState that pointed out the champions of both fiscal and social conservatism in the Senate.  Kyl and Coburn were among them, I believe.  I thought Brownback was too.  He does have a national debt counter on his website, for what that's worth.  

That said, I think StevenK and others above make good points about Brownback's negatives, but Sam was just an example of the type of running mate that would help Giuliani let the base know he was serious about working with them on their issues.

As for Rudy's own fiscal conservatism, his record in NYC on fiscal matters is far from a RINO and borders on Contract With America country.

1. He slashed the top tax rate by 21 percent and killed 23 different taxes.
   
2. The city's annual spending increases averaged less than 3 percent under his governance, with 2 out of 8 annual budgets actually leading to net cuts in outlays.  No GOP president has amassed that type of fiscally conservative record in Washington since anyone can remember.
   
3. Giuliani made these cuts by firing one-sixth of the city's workers --- comparable to the lazy federal employees that staff the bureaucracy over here in DC --- while hiring more cops and teachers and STILL cutting spending.
   
4. Rudy enacted welfare reform and introduced market forces into public services, including attempting to do so with education.

The source is here: http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200503010743.asp

Giuliani is sort of like a socially liberal version of Gingrich.  They even have many of the same personal problems.  That explains why Republicans who like Newt generally like Rudy.  

 GWB lowered taxes and fights as we speak to extend the tax cuts.  He made a good choice with judges, (after some goading).  He is engaged in the war with radical Islam in a way that no democrat would.  I have been more than pleased with GWB.  He was what the country and the party needed and recent close elections continue to show that someone we would really like doesn't stand a chance.  

If one wants further confirmation of how good Bush is, look at the democrats and their steady stream of hatred and vitriol.  They must see something in Bush that is very bad for them.  

Bob - I agree

Guliani's personal life makes me "nervous as long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs".

Bonus Points for those that can name the movie (without 'cheating/research')

Who wants a repeat of the Clinton years with an 'R' next to their name? I don't! I'm not looking forward of having this on the tip of my tongue "It's his personal life... he can do what he wants"

Ugh.

The guy will be 64 yrs old.  I doubt that there will be any Clintonian shenanigans in the Oval Office during Rudy's administration.

I wasn't under the impression that he was a RINO by the time election time ran around. If I was I may not have voted for him. And he hasn't proved to be either. He is much more conservative than his dad and is right on many issues, even if he is completely wrong on a few.

Remember in 92 Bush as a RINO lost a good chunk of the base.

you haven't heard of Viagra!

Plus it's his friends that are half the baggage. I want the President to run his agenda not spend his term defending himself from the rabid media. That is what would happen with Guliani. He probably has a cemetary of skeletons... in addition, they don't even have to dig up the skeletons after a while. The MSM can just start making things up after he is tarnished in the public eye.

What I agreed with is the fear during the election that he would prove to be too "moderate" to please the conservative wing of the party.  

At the time I believed he was as "conservative" a guy as could get elected.  The election showed this to be the case.  My big beef was over immigration, and he has proven to be weak kneed on this one.  (But he also campaigned on the position he still holds, so he was not being dishonest about it.)

His VP will be a social conservative.  May not be Bronwback, but it'll be someone whose credentials on abortion, etc. are considered solid by the Repubican base.

Rudy would be blasted no matter what - he'd be at the top of the ticket for a party that's platform will still be pro-life (while Rudy might get the tone of the platform changed, it'd be unassisted suicide to insist that the party go pro-abortion or even agnostic on abortion).  

The MSM would look for every opportunity to get Rudy to disown the platform.  I don't think he'd do it - I think he'd say something along the lines of "We all wish that no woman would ever want to have an abortion.  I'm going to do everything I can to create an environment in which fewer and fewer women will do something else."

Rudy could be like a "Nixon to China" on this issue.  Think it through:

•  There's little support for a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion completely.
•  If that day is ever going to come, someone someday has to start building political support for the idea.
•  In the near term, reversal of Roe v. Wade is the best our side can hope for.  

Please note I said "near term"

•  If that happens, the result will be that decisions about abortion will be made at the state level, not the federal level.
•  You're going to get a variety of results at the State level - some state Supreme Courts will say their state constitution guarantees a right to abortion (and import all the Supreme Court cases up to the reversal of Roe), others will regulate it through statute, some may outlaw it completely.
•  The best a national politican can do in this environment is urge the adoption of policy that makes abortion less and less "necessary":  chastity based sex-education; beef up adoption programs; argue in public for adoption, not abortion; attack the societal stigma that seems to believe abortion is preferrable to adoption, etc.
•  A Giuliani could do all these things without once compromising a belief that abortion should not be outlawed, etc.  

I suspect he'd even have more standing with the folks in the middle, who we have to win over to the pro-life side to create a critcial mass capable of adopting a life amendment, etc.

i'd only vote for Giuliani if that is the only way to keep the Clintons out of the White House.

personally, I have to wonder about the moral views of someone who supports the destruction of human life at its most innocent stages because of the convinience of irresponsible others.  That sin (to use religious language), IMHO, is even graver than the sins of slavery or the Holocaust.

One more thing.  Giuliani putting Brownback on the ticket would signal opportunism at its worst.  I guess that's politics.

Re: Remember in 92 Bush as a RINO lost a good chunk of the base.

Bush 41 was not a RINO, and he lost in 1992 because he lost the GOP moderates, the Reagan Democrats, and some of the FiCons to Perot (and even a few to Clinton).  There were no issues at all in 1992 with Bush being off-base on social issues; in fact the Houston convention played to this segment of the base precisely because Bush's people knew he was in trouble with other segments of the GOP. Bush's principle problem was with the Read My Lips betrayal not with any missteps on abortion or similar issues.

his problematic friends to public office those skeletons will dance out of their closets  only in the pages of the National Enquirer and its peers.

Putting a VP on the ticket for political purposes.  Who'd a thunk it?  Not Kennedy, not Mondale, not Gore.  Not even Lincoln way back in '64.  1864.

However, there's no question that a ticket with Rudy at the top will have to have some social conservative bona fides.  And I'm not sure that Dr. Rice would bring those.

I have to confess, though, that I've never been terribly impressed with Sam Brownback.  I don't think lowly of him, but neither do my ears perk up when I hear his name.

How about George Allen as Veep?

When he 'suggested' that Bush appoint Bernard Kerik to be the head of Homeland Security.

Running around on your wife and hanging around with other guys that run around on their wifes isn't very popular. Neither is having friends that get involved with mob style Jersey payoffs.

I'm sure this isn't an isolated incident. There are more skeletons.

You could stay home.

I think 2000 was close because Governor Bush was too far to the left to energize his base.  In 2004 he only got his base excited in 2004 because of the war and marriage-definition measures in key states.

2008 could be another coin flip like 2000 with the wrong candidate, and the coin flip could go the other way.  The party had best remember that.

was George W "too far left"? The pablum about Compassionate Conservatism  was little more than sloganeering.

is hardly rare in American history. Don't forget Reagan with Bush the Elder in 1980.

No, "Compassionate conservatism" is more than a slogan.  President Bush really does think that "when somebody hurts, government has gotta move."  And he doesn't mean "move out of the way," as President Reagan might have quipped.

Only a "compassionate conservative," among self-described conservatives, would do all of these, as President Bush would.  Maybe some, but not all:

 * Legalize illegal aliens

 * Use the federal government to impose quality controls on local public schools

 * Give out free prescription drugs

 * Treat Social Security as a necessity, and worry about it staying alive

 * Re-join UNESCO

 * Propose massive government spending to rebuild New Orleans right back on its proven-unsafe location.

This stuff is President Bush on domestic policy, and this kind of thinking emboded in the phrase 'compassionate conservatism' is why I couldn't and didn't vote for him in 2000.  So if we get another squish in 2008, he won't get my vote, either.

I think you misjudge some of us Catholics and social conservatives.  I would never vote for a candidate who was wrong on abortion and life issues -- it's simply too big of an issue (40 million plus abortions, I believe).  

The fact is that not many people would ever cast a vote based on the VP candidate.  I would love it if the Republicans figured out that what makes them popular is strong social and fiscal conservatism.  If they got someone who was strong and outspoken on both, who didn't politically mince words, they'd be in good shape in the Presidential election any time.  

I like the sounds of Guiliani's record.  But I am still suspect of Brownback's.  I am very much looking for someone who will veto his own party's pork.  Guiliani may be that guy.  So far only Sanford and McCain have shown an ability to stand up to their own party on pork issues.  But Guiliani, Pawlenty and Bush seem to have solid records as well.

The base does not consist entirely of single issue voters on abortion. The breaking of the pledge on taxes was a direct betrayal of his base. He nominated Souter. He also signed some pretty lousy bills. He also didn't finish the Gulf War. He has a lot of problems. I consider 41 a disaster.

At least he stopped using that line, even if it still holds true.

I really don't think it matters anyway. Unless the VP is a total disaster I don't see it having a real impact on the ticket.

For all the complaints and harping we have heard about President Bush's policies the last 5 years, I can only imagine what a President Giuliani would muster.  Seriously, those of you contemplating a Giuliani White House had better not be Bush bashers...cuz you totally negate your support for Giuliani.  If you dislike Bush's faithfulness to conservatism, how on earth could you support Giuliani, who is left of Bush on far MORE issues??  C'mon folks!  That is really hypocritical, if you ask me, and totally unfair to Bush.

Don't get me wrong, I am a stubborn critic of the President.  Mostly because he has strayed from conservative principles, and cowered to the left on too many issues.  I COULD NEVER IN MY RIGHT MIND SUPPORT GIULIANI IN THE PRIMARIES, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN HARSH ON BUSH (if he did get the nod, I would have to support him to keep Hillary out, though).  Think of how much MORE harsh we would be on a Giuliani presidency...

So, if you are upset with Bush's conservative leanings...I don't even want to hear you come on this board and start shouting and screaming when Giuliani gets in.  You will have no credit with me.

Reagan didn't pick any old non-conservative, though.  He picked his leading opponent in the primaries.

Having been two years old when it happened, though, I can't say I recall whether it was a ticket-balancing pick or a unifying pick, though.

First a few links:

http://www.nysun.com/article/23696

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/EM513.cfm

http://www.cnsnews.com/InDepth/archive/199903/IND19990317b.html

In what seems to be like a well-kept secret in Washington is that Brownback has become arguably the leader in the Senate for the Flat tax reform.

I consider that to be fiscal conservatism.  Its a conservative position on a fiscal issue.  Just because it doesn't directly shrinken government, it shouldn't be dispelled.

And also, just because Brownback voted for the Energy and Transportation bills shouldn't disqualify his title as "fiscal conservative" because then you really are taking the pork issue too far.  That would means disqualifying many of the very notably fiscally conservative members of the Senate like Senator Allard, Senator Sununu, and even Senator Coburn himself.

In fact the number of Federal Employees declined under Clinton (that statistic doesn't include the military). One could opine that it was due to pressure from the Republican Congress, but if that were the case wouldn't they be doing even better now?

Isn't going to win points from me.

Imagining this being much of an issue. Stern is a clown (and not a funny one at that) who took himself off the air.

a stupid pick, easily the biggest mistake reagan ever made.

would make you foolish. If the candidate said that he would only appoint strict constructionist judges then why would his views on social issues matter?

  Guiliani is already on record as supporting strict constructionists like Roberts.

The Republican caucuses in Congress now aren't the same as the ones in charge during the Clinton years.   Bob Dole might not have been a great conservative legend, but I seem to recall him being a budget hawk, and in any case he beats Bill Frist in plain leadership any day.

And in the House, well, you're not going to see a combination like Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey very often.

Ed Rollins talked about it in his book back in the '90s.  Basically, Reagan wanted his pal Laxalt, the governor of Nevada, but the GOP establishment vetoed it, saying that there was no way the one state that allowed legal prostitution was going to be represented on the ticket.  Then Reagan wanted Kemp, but his older advisors told him he had to balance the ticket with a Rockefeller type, as Rockefeller Republicans were still a huge force back then, and Reagan remarked, "I guess it's Bush" or somnething to that effect.

Rollins was miffed by this; as a young guy and a Reagan Revolutionary, he felt Kemp was a more natural heir to Reagan.  He also felt that if Kemp had been the GOP nominee in 1988, he would have beat Dukakis and Clinton and probably would have extended GOP rule into the 1990s.

That said, without Bush 41, we would never have had Bush 43.

Not everyone on the right is a conservative.  Some people have different priorities than others, so not everyone would be satisfied with merely good judges.

Peter Robinson's "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life" essentailly confirms your Rollins scenario and goes further to say that the Reaganites really did need some insiders to help to actually run the government especially given the dem congress.

What blows my mind is the seeming timidity of most of the GOP candidates to advance the Reagan brand of unapologetic conservatism especially 2 months removed from elections they won while advancing it as they are frightened by msm polls.

I think a better ticket would be Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.

• 2 cute chicks
  
• 2 bright chicks
  
• 1 blonde and one minority
  
• Don't owe anyone anything.

They would kick butt in any debate.

excellent successor to Reagan. Though I'm none too sure what the rseult of a Kemp-Perot-Clinton match up would have been in 1992.

* Legalize illegal aliens

Hmm. Didn't Reagan sign the Simposn-Mazoli (sp?) bill. "Compassion" has nothing to do with the wink and the nod on immigration-- the preferrences of certain important powers-that-be do.

 * Use the federal government to impose quality controls on local public schools

I'll give you this one

* Give out free prescription drugs

OK, and this one

 * Treat Social Security as a necessity, and worry about it staying alive

Reagan ended up doing this too. See: Political realism. The third rail may have lost some of its voltage but it can still fry an unwary pol. Give Bush some credit for at least tiptoeing out to the rail and throwing some stones at it to test the voltage.

 * Re-join UNESCO

I must admit a certain ignorance on this topic. In any event, I don't see any link to Compassionate Conservatism in such a move (unless UN bureaucrats are fitting recipients of our tender mercies?)

 * Propose massive government spending to rebuild New Orleans right back on its proven-unsafe location.

No administration could or would do anything different. The political recrminations and loss of international face would sink it deeper than the Lower 9th Ward. See again: Political realism.

If we can stomach Guilliani as the 2008 presidential candidate we may as well give serious consideration to Lincoln Chaffee.

Re: He nominated Souter.

Who was not yet "grown" into what he is today

Re: He also signed some pretty lousy bills.

Every president has. Bush 43 has No Child Left Behind, McCain-Feingold and the Medicare Drug Bill to his discredit.

Re: He also didn't finish the Gulf War.

far-sighted people saw this as a problem (I saw it as a problem, at the callow age of 24), but the magnitude of this error is only obvious with 20-20 hindsight.

Bush 41 was a better president than he is given credit for, but for sure he was an utterly lousy politician.

to American politics. I suspect he would have run had Jesus Christ been in office in 1992. (Said as an ex-Perot '92 voter)

and a certain amount of rhetoric what else can a (or should) president do on social issues? Surely the proper conservative approach (absent the judicial issue) is get out of the way on most of these matters and allow the states and municipalities to handle them. Since when is the Federal Government appointed as Chief High Nanny, Father Confessor, and Master of the Conscience over us all?

You talk of a proper conservative approach, but not all right-wingers are conservatives.

And to answer your question, since 1932.

George W. Bush was my fourth choice in the 2000 primaries, behind Steve Forbes, Orrin Hatch, and John McCain.  Outside of McCain-Feingold, I really don't have anything to complain about.

To be honest, some of the posts here leave me frustrated and angry.  Quite frankly, this President has actually shown the ability to think ahead and who has developed a solid strategy.  The first President to hold an MBA has managed to do quite well.  Quite frankly, after seeing the same old-same old from the House GOP time and time again, I think he has a better way of doing things, and I'd rather support that than go with folks who prefer to thump their chests about a "stand on principle" than to actually solve a problem.

It seems to me that too many conservatives have become so interested in having a fight that they do not stop to ask two questions:

1. Is this fight necessary - can the same goals be largely achieved without a fight?
   
2. Is this a situation where we win the fight, but lose down the road?

It is a matter of common sense to fight only when needed, and to avoid Phyrric victories.  But both of these questions never seem to be asked, or when they are, those who ask them are labeled as "unprincipled" or somehow are less conservative than the chest-thumpers.

If that is the ticket.

Oh yeah, there's a winning ticket if I've ever heard of one.

1919, with the 18th Amendment

that Giuliani also was fortunate in presiding over New York during the best 10 year span in it's history, fiscally speaking.  He had very little to do with that boom.

He was a very good Mayor.  But it's easy to "slash" taxes when your receipts are skyrocketing.  

He was a tough mayor.  I still remember his battles with the Board of Ed, the Fulton Fish Market racket, and his shutting down the San Gennarro Festival.  Bold moves.  He is an intriguing choice for President.

But he carriers a lot of baggage that is going to really turn off SoCons.

however much of it also has to do with Newt's ability to work with Clinton, which earned him no brownie points with the "Get Clinton" crowd.

And this is the reason why Senators generally make bad candidates.  They have years of votes like these that are unprincipled and antithetical to what most conservatives want.  In this case, the pork spending throughout the government has put a major black mark next to each Senator's chance to be President.  It also makes the few who stand up against this corruption look better than they should (i.e. McCain).  If more Senators stood up to the pork, McCain wouldn't stand out on the issue so much.